| |||||||||||||
Pervasive contemptPervasive contemptPosted Nov 22, 2012 0:08 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165)Parent article: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode "because they are used to certain elements and features of the GNOME 2 UX" GNOMErs cannot conceal their contempt even when trying to appear conciliatory. As has been explained to them many, many times. people don't hate GNOME 3 "because they are [not] used to" it. Knowledgeable people prefer to stick with GNOME 2 because it works better. More precisely, many frequently-used operations that require zero or one input actions on GNOME 2 require several on GNOME 3. Other necessary operations cannot be done on GNOME 3 with any amount of jiggery-pokery. Failure is never a surprise, and it's not always a choice. Not learning from failure is always a choice.
(Log in to post comments)
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 0:55 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Sorry, but after a month or so struggling with the very early Gnome 3 versions, I now find I'm more productive with Gnome 3 than I ever was with Gnome 2. This "nobody can use Gnome 3 efficiently" is nonsense. The Gnome developers I know do tend to use the latest builds on a day-to-day basis, and they would surely be the very first ones to complain if it didn't work at all, as is usually claimed here.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 1:43 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> This "nobody can use Gnome 3 efficiently" is nonsense.
Nobody claimed any such thing.
Consider a simple action of changing a workspace using the GUI/mouse in Gnome 2 and 3, for instance.
Gnome 2 (or Gnome 3 fallback): move mouse to the workspace switcher, click on the workspace in workspace switcher (which you are constantly aware of, just by glancing at it), change of view.
Gnome 3: move the mouse to the activities, wait for hot corner or click, change of view, travel to the right, wait for workspaces to pop up, become aware of the one you want, click on it, change of view again.
No, not a regression at all...
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 1:46 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Activities overview, click on the application you want, get automatically taken to that workspace.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 1:47 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
What application? There is no application.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 2:02 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
You spend most of your time switching to empty workspaces? That seems like an unusual use case.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 2:12 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Nice try, but no. There are things that can be done on an empty workspace, like, I don't know - right click and start something? Go to a place? Create a new document?
Even in your case, where you do have a running application, overview is still a regression, because there are two changes of view and you cannot even see where your application is without entering the overview. (I never claimed things could not be improved in the "classic" paradigm - just that activities overview isn't it).
Please read Windows 8 review by the real usability expert I pointed to a few comments above. It is rather instructive when it comes to Gnome 3. I wasn't even aware of how hard Gnome developers have been looking at Metro before I saw Windows 8 on YouTube.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 2:51 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
You seem to be running some Gnome 3 that isn't the one I'm running. Right clicking does nothing. I've no idea what "Go to a place" means.
Sure, it's mildly more involved to move an application to a different workspace. But that's made up for by not *having* to know where my application is - I click, I get taken there. I spend much more time interacting with running applications than I do starting new ones.
(I'm pretty convinced you've got your timeline wrong regarding Windows 8 and Gnome 3)
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 3:04 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> You seem to be running some Gnome 3 that isn't the one I'm running.
I run F-17, Gnome 3 fallback. Local desktop with mutter, remote one with metacity (mutter too slow on a VM).
> Right clicking does nothing. I've no idea what "Go to a place" means.
Just another two regressions introduced in Gnome 3, really.
Go to a place means clicking on Places and picking one. Right clicking does plenty when you have Nautilus run your desktop. If you install nautilus-open-terminal, it does even more.
> (I'm pretty convinced you've got your timeline wrong regarding Windows 8 and Gnome 3)
Possibly. Still, Nielsen's review of Windows 8 appears rather applicable to Gnome 3, as many ideas are the same.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 23:57 UTC (Thu) by luya (subscriber, #50741) [Link]
Ideas might be the same, implementations are different. For example, Windows 8 still does not have multiple work-spaces. Simply try Window 8 yourself. I can tell you it does look nor work like Gnome Shell at all.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 5:36 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
The key disconnect imho seems to be that bojan is wed to a workspace = taskset work model, i.e. each workspace is dedicated to performing certain tasks. Although one workspace will suffice for doing new things, there is only one empty one in a dynamic location in gnome3 whereas in gnome2 the workspaces were laid out in a static grid and therefore amenable to what i suspect is his workstyle.
I suspect it would be very enlightening to watch these users under a controlled environment in gnome2 and then in gnome3 ti see where precisely the disconnects come and to see if my hunch above is correct.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 6:21 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
You don't need to guess, I can tell you.
Yes, I use workspaces to separate things (they are called _work_ _spaces_ for a reason). Most times by task, but sometimes simply because there is not enough space to hold all the required windows to complete one task open at the same time (yes, some of us actually use more than _one_ window at one time). The old MS Windows paradigm of minimise/raise is rather messy compared to seeing _everything_ in the workspace switcher and going there with one click (i.e. most times, no window is behind anything).
Static nature of workspaces (which to Gnome developer's credit has been reintroduced) is essential for visual orientation. If you read that paper by Nielsen that I pointed to, you'll see that he talks about "glancing" being superior to "switching", because you don't really have to do anything other than raise your eyes to do it. That is what workspace switcher is for, window thumbnails included.
Gnome 3 has zero visibility. That is problem number one. Gnome 3 needs two view switches for every workspace change (using GUI). That's problem number two.
Don't get me wrong. I use "activities overview" on my Android phone all the time, because there is no space to put everything on the "desktop" there. Not so on my computer. So, I don't see why I should be RFC1925(6)-ed all the time...
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 15:08 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
I have to say that I'm confused by the GNOME 3 and KDE 4 notion of activities. I also tend to group my activities by workspace - it's arguably the most powerful feature of KDE 3 and earlier that the proprietary environments never supported out of the box - and being able to jump to a workspace using Ctrl-Fn is incredibly convenient and puts that increasingly neglected row of function keys to some use.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 18:43 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
static workspaces is also a core part of my work-flow. I've got winkey+1 burned into my fingers for accessing a collection of terminals, winkey+2 for web, winkey+3 for email/IM. GNOME3 destroys that for me. Even the UI to configure the shortcut keys is gone, had to futz in dconf. XFCE works better in this regard for me (though has other downsides). Will try MATE next, now it's packaged for Fedora.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 27, 2012 0:16 UTC (Tue) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link] Even the UI to configure the shortcut keys is gone, had to futz in dconf. It's under System Settings, Keyboard, Shortcuts tab, Navigation group. (This is in GNOME 3.2, hopefully not removed since!)
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 27, 2012 0:41 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
It's there in 3.6.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 27, 2012 8:46 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Ah cool. I remember when I tried I did find a UI for shortcut keys, except it didn't let you specify workspace bindings. But this was a while ago, perhaps 3.0? I'll have a look next time.
Though, both Cinnamon and GNOME Shell induce occasional complete lockups of the X server with Nouveau in Fedora 16. When I upgrade to Fedora 18 I'll see if that's improved (must have right - "force drivers to get better" was one of the aims of GNOME Shell going 3D, no?). Till then I have to stick to XFCE.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 18:51 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Quite. Not only do I organize workspaces by task, but the assignment is nearly static: some workspaces have had the same task assigned to them for nearly two decades now (though some change much more frequently). So the spatial locations on the workspace grid of tasks I've needed for a long time are very much wired into my memory. As a result, I always know exactly where I am and where everything I need is, without ever needing to think about it. I have hotkeys assigned to such long-term workspaces but I hardly ever use them because a couple of keystrokes to flip to the right workspace by simple spatial navigation is much faster, and in the absence of a working teleporter fits better with the geographic metaphor. And that metaphor is *useful*: geographic location tracking has been wired into our brains since we started walking on land. I think of virtually everything that way, workspaces, inheritance graphs, ownership graphs, filesystem hierarchies, they're all geographic maps of a sort. I'm hardly the first person to evolve this scheme: the old 'palace of memory' trick is doing something similar.
Dynamic grids (and similar things such as the dynamically-changing alt-tab ordering of many windowing environments) *ruin* this sort of geographic metaphor completely. They must not be the only available option, or those of us who use geographic metaphors are left completely out in the cold. (I've been using this metaphor for so long that I actually feel *seasick* in a GUI that uses some other metaphor, as if the solid ground has turned to water, and yes, I get all the physiological responses that go with seasickness, too. Getting any work done in that state is hopeless.)
There's nothing wrong with a grid that expands dynamically as you use more workspaces, but moving existing things around, or changing the navigation between existing things without explicit user permission, will break the model and break the workflow of people like me. (And cause me to lose my lunch!)
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 23, 2012 9:51 UTC (Fri) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
Really great post, thanks.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 23, 2012 11:58 UTC (Fri) by stevem (subscriber, #1512) [Link]
+1
You're describing something very similar to my own working habits here...
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 23, 2012 19:42 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
It's probably common to most of us who grew up with fvwm and other similar '2D gridded infinite screen' window managers. They seem to be out of favour these days in favour of completely-separate-desktop 1D window managers, and I have no idea why -- apparently it's *useful* to be able to lose your windows off the edge of every screen rather than only those at the edge of the grid, or something.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 23, 2012 11:59 UTC (Fri) by hholzgra (subscriber, #11737) [Link]
True, so true ...
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 16:31 UTC (Thu) by niko (guest, #80138) [Link]
This is valid use case, I use to switch to new workspace when I want to start something new there. Or do you start app and then move it to new workspace?
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 12:22 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
For me, this breaks down as soon as I have windows of the same application on different workspaces. This is very common for "meta" applications such as gnome-terminal and web browsers.
Use the keyboard Posted Nov 22, 2012 2:25 UTC (Thu) by jbicha (subscriber, #75043) [Link]
Or use the keyboard: Super+Down and Super+Up
The vast majority of GNOME developers do in fact use GNOME on laptops/desktops with keyboards and mice and not on touch-screen tablets.
Use the keyboard Posted Nov 22, 2012 2:33 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
I have to say, a typical post in response to Gnome 3 GUI regressions being pointed out. Completely orthogonal to the problem, as it has been pointed out many times.
Use the keyboard Posted Nov 22, 2012 6:25 UTC (Thu) by kigurai (guest, #85475) [Link]
I guess YMMV, but I find it easier to do "flick top left, then click large rectangle on right" to switch workspace than "move mouse to very small rectangle in lower right, and click" with a mouse.
But then, I usually switch ws using either keyboard or keyboard+mouse, because that is the fastest way.
Use the keyboard Posted Nov 22, 2012 8:31 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Yes, the corners are useful for sure. Unless you are working remotely (i.e. have another desktop in a window), in which case they are not really corners and become a nuisance (i.e. they activate overview in the remote desktop when you go over them on your way somewhere else). But, yeah, horses for courses and all that. I certainly understand your point. In fact, you could have hot corners in Gnome 2 with compiz.
On the point of the workspace switcher, it can be made bigger (customisation benefit), it is flushed against the edge so, unless you are working remotely, it's a big target, just like the corner etc. Also, it can be moved anywhere (another benefit of customisation) - mine is in the upper left, next to the menu, for instance.
But, one of the main benefits of the workspace switcher is visibility. It is literally zero effort to remind yourself where stuff is at any given time. This is completely gone from Gnome Shell.
Use the keyboard Posted Nov 22, 2012 9:20 UTC (Thu) by kigurai (guest, #85475) [Link]
If I wanted a bigger workspace switcher in Gnome 2 I had to increase the height of my bottom panel. Did not want to do that.
I disagree with the visibility thing. I think it is much more visible in GS than using the WS. Sure, I have to press <Super> if I forget where I put stuff, but at least the workspace preview I get then is much larger than ~15 pixels wide, so I can actually see something :)
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 2:33 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
> Consider a simple action of changing a workspace using the GUI/mouse in Gnome 2 and 3, for instance.
Eh, Neither G2 or G3 is particularly good on that front; thankfully they both support the use of hotkeys to page between workspaces so my hands never have to leave the keyboard.
Perhaps the single most annoying thing I had to deal with in the G2-G3 transition was that the workspace paging hotkeys changed from CTRL-ALT-[Left|Right] to CTRL-ALT-[Up|Down].
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 4:45 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> Eh, Neither G2 or G3 is particularly good on that front
I agree with you here, actually. At least Gnome 2 and Gnome 3 fallback can be customised better.
The annoying bit in Gnome 2 (and Gnome 3 fallback) is the existence of two panels. One has to travel with the mouse up/down all the time. Personally, I have been running a single (top) panel for years now, with workspace switcher right next to the menu. Plenty of space for the taskbar too.
And, if space was not wasted on displaying user's real name all the way to the right (people have to be reminded of their name? seriously?), if applications/places were icons instead of text and Gnome 3 fallback wasn't buggy when displaying status icons (which are too widely spaced), there would be even more space available on that single panel, whether it be on top, bottom, left or right (depending on personal preferences, screen X to Y ratio etc.).
Gnome 2 panels Posted Nov 22, 2012 14:55 UTC (Thu) by jhellan (subscriber, #17103) [Link]
I've also been using a single panel in Gnome 2. Autohidden on laptop screens, always visible on large screens.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 18:47 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
I've just used one panel for yonks. One thing I used to do with GNOME 2 on my wide-screen format laptop was to use a side-panel instead. The wide-screens so typical these days tend to leave you with a surfeit of horizontal space relative to horizontal. On smaller wide-screens you may even be short of vertical space and not want a top-panel at all (or at least, if you do, have it set to auto-hide).
Configurable side panels and auto-hide have been excised with GNOME3 AFAICT.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 23, 2012 19:11 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
The side panel for Gnome 2 is terrible. I use side panel exclusively when using Windows. I can't stand Gnome 2 one after using one that actually works properly.
With Gnome 3 it's possible to get a decent one through extensions or whatever. At least for my purposes it can be made to work correctly.
Although I find that using the 'alt-tab' or 'alt-~' to access window change dialog combined with arrow key navigation is superior to using the mouse in any situation. I know that lots of people are irritated by the change, but the way Gnome 3 is almost objectively better design.. it's most significant fault is that it's different then the Microsoft style.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 29, 2012 13:08 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
The side-panel isn't as useful as a top-panel. Only things that stack well vertically work well there. E.g. launcher icons, relatively square status indicators (e.g. the temp/fan sensors applets - /if/ you configured them to disable labels), workspaces indicator, notification area.
So I still needed a horizontal panel, for application indicators, menu. However moving what could to a side-panel freed up space on the horizontal one.
The alternative would have been top and bottom panels, both set to auto-hide. With the side-panel, in less precious side-space, I could afford to have it always visible.
This stuff matters on a laptop with a 1200x800 screen. :)
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 19:35 UTC (Thu) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link]
> I have been running a single (top) panel for years now, with workspace switcher right next to the menu. Plenty of space for the taskbar too.
Exactly! It always puzzles me why so many Linux desktops like to waste vertical space that became more valuable with the spread of 16:9 screens. In fact on a small notebook with a wide screen even a single top or bottom panel takes too much vertical space. I would prefer to have a vertical panel. Gnome 3 panel that contains just clocks and notification icons would be a nice candidate for that. But nope, there is of cause no such option. In fact so far the only working vertical panel that I found is the one in Windows 7...
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 27, 2012 21:21 UTC (Tue) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link]
> with the spread of 16:9 screens
This is why I still own 4:3 and 5:4 monitors :-)
But I still prefer the top and bottom panels. They are filled with information. The top has my menu, and startup icons for terminal, firefox, chrome, ding, evolution, and xchat. As well as weather applet, kill-window, screen shot applet, sound, notifications and date.
The bottom has the "clear screen", logout, the task list, system monitors and finally the workspace switcher (note, I just use hot keys to switch, seldom do I click on the workspace switcher).
But I've always disliked side panels. I don't know why, maybe because I don't read up and down?
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 29, 2012 9:31 UTC (Thu) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link]
> But I've always disliked side panels. I don't know why, maybe because I don't read up and down?
I have found that as long as the panel is just a source of occasional visual hints or information, like time, network and battery status, it works for me vertically when placed on the right of a wide screen. There it destructs less.
The disadvantage of such setup is that one cannot use the panel for navigation between windows. First there is a problem with a long mouse travel to the right edge from the left where most of my activity happens. Second a task-bar style navigation with ungrouped windows simply cannot work unless one makes the panel really wide to see all window titles. But grouping implies more mouse movements or clicks first to select the a group and then to select a window within the group.
So with a single vertical panel on the right one needs efficient keyboard navigation to switch between windows. I have found that MS solution in Win7 is rather good with big application icons on the panel, ability to pin an application to a permanent on the panel position and keyboard shortcuts to access a particular pin or cycle through its windows. One can emulate that on Linux with virtual desktops, but application icons still offer a possibility of using a mouse with a single movement and click to access single-windowed rarely used applications.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 1:39 UTC (Thu) by zaitcev (guest, #761) [Link]
What are those "many frequently used operations"? Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but my most frequently used operation is "ls". Still works great in GNOME 3.
Pervasive contempt Posted Nov 22, 2012 1:46 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Wow! So, you actually type ls in Gnome Shell, not bash, right? Please...
|
|||||||||||||